I like this case, because all the pro-AGW people I've seen have expressed dismay over the mistake. Credit where credit is due: That's a lot better than doubling down, which is what they've done on everything till now. If they want to get my trust back, this is the right way to do it.

JAL, the whole Greenland thing is part and parcel of an OLD denier talking point that has been explained to death. It would do no good to simply point you to the correct answer. I'm sure it would do you much more good to dig and find the correct answer yourself. It's out there. Promise.

And as they always have. Seems you and MikeR are of the same mind that scientists double down to hide mistakes. Try to find even ONE example of this happening. Scientists LOVE to correct mistakes. It can be career-making. And they certainly would not want to build a reputation on a knowingly-flawed model, realizing some wet-behind-the-ears grad student could destroy the whole thing with one quick research note.

HoDa: Anti-capitalist? Where do you think there's more economy to be grown and money to be made; business as usual, or research, innovation and implementation. A commitment to green energy, if done right, would dwarf the impact of the space program in the '60s.

You know after the Japanese tsunami, the Germans decided to shut down a whole bunch of nuke plants. Don't know what they're going to replace them with and guess what, neither do the Krauts. I mean if anyone was on the cutting edge if green tech it would be them but I guess not.

Don't get me wrong, if we could convert cow shit into fuel for my SUV I would cheerfully accept if just to tell the Middle East to drink their oil. Unfortunately we can't, probably because the green tech available isn't economically feasible.

Actually, the map mistake was committed by map publishers, not by scientists. And it was caught and corrected by scientists.

"But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick.

It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images.

There are no official figures on how much ice has melted but one scientist put it at between 0.3 and 1.5 per cent of the ice sheet.

Publicity for the new atlas read: ‘For the first time the new edition has had to erase 15 per cent of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover – turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland “green” and ice-free.

‘This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet for ever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate.’

The seven Cambridge scientists who signed the letter are closely involved with research into changes in the Greenland ice shelf.

They do not dispute that some glaciers have got smaller but say the overall picture presented is wrong.

Glaciologist Dr Poul Christoffersen of the Scott Institute said: ‘We believe that the figure of a 15 per cent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years ago is both incorrect and misleading.

‘We compared recent satellite images of Greenland with the new map and found that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands.

‘We conclude that a sizeable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered. There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature.’

If the Times Atlas calculations were correct, the ice sheet would have been shrinking at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year since 1999.

But most scientists in the field say that the rate is closer to 0.1 per cent."

A spokesman for HarperCollins yesterday admitted the land shown as green and described as ‘ice-free’ could be up to 500m – more than a quarter of a mile – thick.

She said: ‘I can see why you could see that as misleading.’

She said the data was provided by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado. Its lead scientist Dr Ted Scambos said it appeared the atlas had used a map from the Centre’s website which showed ‘ice thickness’ not the extent of the ice edge.

He added that the Centre had never been contacted by the atlas’s cartographers.

He said: ‘That map would not be appropriate and there are many small glaciers and ice domes around the perimeter of Greenland that should have been included in the permanent ice sheet.

‘We are very surprised by the mistake because lots of people – in the U.S., Europe, Cambridge – could have steered the atlas away from this high-profile statement as ice in Greenland is fairly well mapped and the melting is nowhere near this level.

‘Was it a mistake? I can only speculate that the people promoting the map were thinking differently from the cartographers.

‘The problem is that people may think that because the melting is so much less than 15 per cent it is not something to worry about – but it is. Part of the mission of the sceptic community is to throw wrench and create confusion, when in fact there is a lot of understanding in this area.’

@AlexA lot of these "mistakes" seem to be piling up in the AGW community.

I'm not sure what the AGW "community" is, but in this case it was map publishers who did not consult the climate science community. And it was the climate science community that pointed out the error and insisted it be fixed.

Remember the goal is "enact high carbon taxes".

That;s the policy prescription many of them favor, but it's government that either does or doesn't do it. Map publishers don't, and neither do climate scientists.

If your interpretation were accurate, then why did climate scientists insist the map be corrected? Aren;t they willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get the carbon taxes enacted? Yet they apparently stick at drawing inaccurate maps.

Good on the scientists for noticing the error of the Atlas company and working to publicly correct it. That is certainly above and beyond the call of duty. I'm not sure how that makes them 'grant whores' though. They are not responsible for the misstatement. They are only responsible for publicly correcting it.

Back in 1840s, Michael Faraday began intervening in "political science," acting to correct misinformation. I suspect he felt a great deal of responsibilty to do so and from what I've read of the man, would not have considered it beyond the call of duty.

Sorepaw, since you mis-spelled "pit bull" am I to assume you simply do not understand the concept as it applies to someone who relentlessly attacks others, or may I conclude you are confused as to word in all of its senses, including the classification of dog breed as well?

Until you retract your suggestion that typos equal ignorance, you're going to have to do a much better job of spell checking while I'm around.

Sorepaw, your conspiracy theories are self-refuting. I've been commenting here a lot longer than you have and the regulars here have seen me light into progressives on any number of environmental issues.

But I guess we all have to concede that it is superbrave of you to accuse me, from behind your anonymity, of terrible crimes such as "campaigning to get people fired" and being "designated" by the "CAGW crowd" to harass people on Althouse. And I suppose it is too much to expect that you produce any sort of evidence to back either statement.

Hey Snorepaw, go reread your WattsUpWithThat post. The author of the referenced article, a man who acknowledges AGW by the way, stopped by to correct him, and Watts was forced to retract. And T-guy, when golfers notice the cooling effect of clouds, that's weather, not climate.

Horemaw, I think we've been over this before, but ... though my degrees are in the social sciences, I do have 30+ credits in graduate level methods and stats (I'd be happy to provide transcripts, but I'm sure you'd just accuse me of forgery), so I can sludge through the original sources with a certain degree of deft, though it is not a favorite pass time of mine. I simply consider myself an informed layman, and much more enjoy reading reading relevant experts' explanation of the developing field. I just don't get why you choose the the 3% side, and assert with certitude that yours are all pure as driven snow while 97% are in the can for man. Wouldn't logic and common sense dictate that the opposite is much more likely to be the case?